Yay for creationists

[sandorski]

Re-indoctrinate!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm a creationist and I believe God created everything.

That doesn't mean you have to believe that evolution is false. Evolution can be viewed as how God created everything -- millions of Christians and other theistic evolutionists maintain this belief just fine.

The problem is that you're uncritically swallowing the total lies spoonfed to you by the religious conservatives and regurgitating them on the forum. Think for yourself, for crissakes.

What else do you think they're lying to you about?

I could do that.... but I am not going to. When the Bible said that God created man in his own image, created the birds, and trees, etc - that is what I believe.

*facepalm*

That doesn't answer the question of how God allegedly accomplished those things. The "how" is answered by science, and the answer is evolution.

I do not believe the "lies spoonfed to [me]", I believe the Bible.

Keep telling yourself that, chump. You'll be continually embarassed when your beliefs collide so violently with reality and are left in silly-looking shambles.

I do believe that there is micro-evolution within a species, but I do not believe any other theory.

That's like saying you believe in 50 meters but not 50 kilometers because you can't see that far. You're an idiot.

I appreciate that you haven't sunk to using profanity, but please ease up a bit on the (multiple) personal insults. I do not see where he has engaged you in such a manner, thus meriting the insults.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I tried my best to keep up. I'm at work and I have other things to do. I'm a creationist and I believe God created everything. I do not have strong feelings that both should be taught in science class and I really don't care that much about it. It's been awhile since I've engaged in a debate like this and I'm very rusty.

9 vs. 1... I think I held up okay.

If "I think I held up okay" means you didn't have your mind changed, then you did ok...I guess, congrats. :roll:

Thinking that you were going to change my mind in this debate makes you more of an idiot than you think I am.

It's good you have a user name that sums up yourself so succinctly.

I believe that's 6 now.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm a creationist and I believe God created everything.

That doesn't mean you have to believe that evolution is false. Evolution can be viewed as how God created everything -- millions of Christians and other theistic evolutionists maintain this belief just fine.

The problem is that you're uncritically swallowing the total lies spoonfed to you by the religious conservatives and regurgitating them on the forum. Think for yourself, for crissakes.

What else do you think they're lying to you about?

I could do that.... but I am not going to. When the Bible said that God created man in his own image, created the birds, and trees, etc - that is what I believe. I do not believe the "lies spoonfed to [me]", I believe the Bible.

I do believe that there is micro-evolution within a species, but I do not believe any other theory.

It doesn't say HOW he created man in his own image. He could have chosen to use evolution and a lot of time.

It sure does.... but I gotta go. Read the first couple chapters of Genesis.

Is this Genesis before or after Phil Collins???

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...008/sliming_palin.html

Looks towards the bottom.

I did. Factcheck's own denial contradicts itself.

• No Creationism in Schools

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied

• Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject ? creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

• Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

Breaking that down...

...when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

There is NO "debate." It was over long ago, and the wingnuts lost. "Creationism," "creation science" and "intelligent design" are NOT "information." They have been held in numerous court cases to be variations of the same religious dogma that has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. The fact that "Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in [the public schools]" flies in stark contrast to her own stated view that she is "a proponent of teaching" her ooga booga mystery oil dogma in our schools.

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Creationism is a belief
Intelligent design is a belief
Evolution is a belief

NO! Evolution is a theory, and it appears that, like many who try to dismiss evolution as a "belief," you don't know the meaning of the word.

the·o·ry

n. pl. the·o·ries

• 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
  
  2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
  
  3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
  
  4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
  
  5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
  
  6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

It takes exactly one inconsistancy or disproof to discredit a theory. Got one?
.
.
Didn't think so.

The only ones still advocating teaching such bullshit in parallel, contrast or any other equivalency with real science, including evolution, are those at the far trailing edge of human evolutionary development. :roll:

For your reading pleasure...

Court cases

Epperson v. Arkansas

• Main article: Epperson v. Arkansas

In 1928, Arkansas adopted a law which prohibited any public school or university from teaching "the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals" and from using any textbook which taught the same, prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools. During the forty years the Arkansas law was in effect, no one was ever prosecuted for violating it. In the mid-1960s the secretary of the Arkansas Education Association sought to challenge the law as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In 1968 the United States Supreme Court invalidated the statute, ruling it unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Mandates that creation science be taught were not ruled unconstitutional by the Court until the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard.

McLean v. Arkansas[/b]

• Main article: McLean v. Arkansas

In 1982 another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including evidence from Francisco Ayala.

Edwards v. Aguillard[/b]

• Main article: Edwards v. Aguillard

In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act". The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, the "creation science" had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law, arguing that the Act was about academic freedom for teachers, an argument adopted by the state in support of the Act. Lower courts ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation science," but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. The similar case in McLean v. Arkansas had also decided against creationism. Mclean v. Arkansas however was not appealed to the federal level, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Act was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" leaving open the door for a handful of proponents of creation science to evolve their arguments into the iteration of creationism that came to be known as intelligent design.

Intelligent Design

• Main article: Intelligent design
  
  See also: Neo-creationism, Intelligent design movement, Teach the Controversy, and Critical Analysis of Evolution

In response to Edwards v. Aguillard, the Neo-Creationist intelligent design movement was formed around the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community, and makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It has been viewed as a "scientific" approach to creationism by creationists, but is widely rejected as unscientific by the science community (see for example, list of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design).

Before you knock it because it's from wikipedia, I've included many of the active links, and you can always chase the rest of them from the page at my link.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I tried my best to keep up. I'm at work and I have other things to do. I'm a creationist and I believe God created everything. I do not have strong feelings that both should be taught in science class and I really don't care that much about it. It's been awhile since I've engaged in a debate like this and I'm very rusty.

9 vs. 1... I think I held up okay.

If "I think I held up okay" means you didn't have your mind changed, then you did ok...I guess, congrats. :roll:

Thinking that you were going to change my mind in this debate makes you more of an idiot than you think I am.

It's good you have a user name that sums up yourself so succinctly.

I believe that's 6 now.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'm a creationist and I believe God created everything.

That doesn't mean you have to believe that evolution is false. Evolution can be viewed as how God created everything -- millions of Christians and other theistic evolutionists maintain this belief just fine.

The problem is that you're uncritically swallowing the total lies spoonfed to you by the religious conservatives and regurgitating them on the forum. Think for yourself, for crissakes.

What else do you think they're lying to you about?

I could do that.... but I am not going to. When the Bible said that God created man in his own image, created the birds, and trees, etc - that is what I believe. I do not believe the "lies spoonfed to [me]", I believe the Bible.

I do believe that there is micro-evolution within a species, but I do not believe any other theory.

It doesn't say HOW he created man in his own image. He could have chosen to use evolution and a lot of time.

It sure does.... but I gotta go. Read the first couple chapters of Genesis.

Read On the Origin of Species and then tell me how 150 years of verification has failed to turn up any fact that proves evolution wrong.

 

[jonks]

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries ? particularly the United States and his native Germany ? between creationism and evolution was an ?absurdity,? saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

?They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,? the pope said. ?This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.?

Seems like the Pope gets it.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

Demonstrated why America needs better science education.

Or better scientists.

The big bang or single cell theory has not been proven or disproven, and neither has ID. The reason why people think it does not belong in a science class is because they believe (read: have faith) that science will one day prove beyond a doubt that we evolved because of the big bang or from a single cell, and at the same time reject and/or lack the belief (read: faith) that ID (or creationism) can or will one day be proven.

Current scientific theories must be met with faith that we somehow evolved and that no ID was involved, which means even if the big bang, single cell, etc are all disproven or found to be unprovable, they will move onto another theory.

Yes, that is how science works. When new evidence is presented the theories evolve. To be fair, religion eventually does as well but usually only after being made to look completely foolish (see sig, or read up on how excited the church was about the theory of heliocentrism). Hell, the church is even starting to slowly come around on the theory of evolution.

Question, since you believe it requires faith (like religious faith) to believe in scientific theory would you agree that it requires faith to believe if you jump off of a 20' high roof that you will fall? After all, it is the THEORY of gravity.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Question, since you believe it requires faith (like religious faith) to believe in scientific theory would you agree that it requires faith to believe if you jump off of a 20' high roof that you will fall? After all, it is the THEORY of gravity.

Heathen. It's not gravity, that's just a theory. The competing theory is Intelligent Falling. I think they need to teach both.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Question, since you believe it requires faith (like religious faith) to believe in scientific theory would you agree that it requires faith to believe if you jump off of a 20' high roof that you will fall? After all, it is the THEORY of gravity.

Heathen. It's not gravity, that's just a theory. The competing theory is Intelligent Falling. I think they need to teach both.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

Because one is SCIENCE, not ideology.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

Because one is SCIENCE, not ideology.

DEBATE IS IMPORTANT. The important part is not having two equally or even comparably valid points to debate about, the only thing that matters is that we DEBATE. You might say that your computer is powered by electricity, but I believe it is powered by gravy. If you refuse to discuss this with me you're just giving in to closeminded scientists who think that computers run on electricity instead of flour and beef squeezin's. Why do you hate freedom of expression?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Republicans don't believe in Science, they only believe in Religion so what do you expect?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

Because one is SCIENCE, not ideology.

DEBATE IS IMPORTANT. The important part is not having two equally or even comparably valid points to debate about, the only thing that matters is that we DEBATE. You might say that your computer is powered by electricity, but I believe it is powered by gravy. If you refuse to discuss this with me you're just giving in to closeminded scientists who think that computers run on electricity instead of flour and beef squeezin's. Why do you hate freedom of expression?

Not Gravy, Smoke! That's why when your PC starts Smoking it ceases to function, for the Smoke has escaped!!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

Because one is SCIENCE, not ideology.

DEBATE IS IMPORTANT. The important part is not having two equally or even comparably valid points to debate about, the only thing that matters is that we DEBATE. You might say that your computer is powered by electricity, but I believe it is powered by gravy. If you refuse to discuss this with me you're just giving in to closeminded scientists who think that computers run on electricity instead of flour and beef squeezin's. Why do you hate freedom of expression?

Scientists are closed minded and refuse to consider or accept radical ideas provided there is enough proof to back up the claim? I guess that is why they spend countless hours teaching students how to both prove and disprove theory now isn't it? This must also be why many of them dedicate their whole lives towards trying to disprove something in order to bring to light something new and more advanced.

How many creationists do you know that teach their students how to try and disprove creationism?

 

[Moonbeam]

Creationism is a joke. It should only be taught in comedy school. The only people who see anything in Creationism are fundie Christian Twits.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Except that evolution is a theory. The crux of Darwinian evolutionary theory is that populations evolve or change over the course of generations through a process called natural selection.

Why don't you do us all a favor and read The Origin of Species.

The problem with the "Theory of Evolution" is it cannot be proven false until scientists stop creating theories to back up/prove the "Theory of Evolution".

EDIT: and we weren't just talking about Darwin's theory, we were discussing the overall of how we came to be and how it can be proven.

Its proven... I hate to tell you.

Its proven in DNA analysis, fossil records, and can be seen currently in bacteria strains becoming immune to antibiotics. The words "theory of evolution" kind of stuck to it, but it has long since been proven science. We dont know exactly what got it started, and that can be debated, but the fact that life evolved on Earth over the past 4 billion years cannot be debated. It is a fact, proven many times over by science.

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: loki8481
#1: repost
#2: what did Palin do as governor to get creationism taught in schools?

#1: Thanks for being the neocons'..err Republicans' personal apologists on these forums.

#2: If you're going by what Palin did as governor as a basis to determine her eligibility on issues, then she won't have much to run on besides half-brained lip service. Oh wait, my bad - I forgot that's the case anyways.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Did Palin say anything about science class? Why not have creationism in some kind of Philosophy/religion class that students can choose to take but not mandatory. And keep evolution and other scientifically backed theory in the science class until anything scientific proof those theories aren't correct.

Sure, they can teach it right alongside Greek and Norse mythologies.

I'm not discounting the Christian religion, I'm just saying that if they want to proselytize their faith outside their churches and inside our secular public schools, then that's where they belong.

Originally posted by: jonks

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries ? particularly the United States and his native Germany ? between creationism and evolution was an ?absurdity,? saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

?They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,? the pope said. ?This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.?

Seems like the Pope gets it.

This is because, except for that pesky issue of timeframe, the scientific theories are in NO WAY incompatible or exclusionary with Christian creationism. In fact, there are have been some strong atheist scientists, like Hoyle, who went to their graves fighting against the Big Bang because they thought it was too much like the Genesis account.

And it isn't just this that is making the fundie creationists look silly. Science is expanding by leaps and bounds. Scientists have discovered more about our universe in the last 100 or so years than they had in all of human history before then, and more in the last 10 years than in the last 100 years. Where there was still some room for doubt just a few years ago with evolution and big bang, now WE KNOW they are facts. And I mean, WE KNOW.
Next up, I predict, will be reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics. Then, an expansion of multiverse theories. It'll be interesting when we realize that our shared reality is an individual reality as well, that we blaze our own paths through infinite dimensions of spacetime. Will that strengthen or weaken our concept of God? My personal belief is the former, but because it will weaken the authority structure of the fundie churches (as new knowledge always does), my prediction there is that the fundies would fight it tooth-and-nail even if scientists proved God exists (which they can't of course, but I'm sure you get my meaning).

 

[TheVrolok]

For those arguing with ZeroIQ about creationism, please just head over to DrDino (Kent Horvid)'s website and listen to his lecture. After a few minutes listening you'll understand why it's impossible to debate it with them. I listen to these lecture's pretty frequently because I think they're hilarious.

 

[quikah]

Originally posted by: jonks

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries ? particularly the United States and his native Germany ? between creationism and evolution was an ?absurdity,? saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

?They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,? the pope said. ?This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.?

Seems like the Pope gets it.

The Catholic church has been pretty progressive on this subject for a while now. I went to Catholic school in the '80s grades 1-8, we had a pretty rigorous science curriculum for grades 6-8, and were taught all the secular scientific theories. The only thing even remotely related to creationism that was taught was basically that God created everything, and this is how it works. I really don't see how anything more could be taught in school without turning it into a Bible study, which turns it into a religion class.

 

[ericlp]

anyone that didn't see this coming had to be on the moon.

Yay! I'm jumping on the Jesus bus and voting for the republicans! Maybe all the churches will push to vote for R. Who's running? Who gives a rats ass just vote for R!!!!

That's all you need to know!

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haven't we had this debate enough?

1.) Creationism/ID are religion, not science.
2.) Only science should be taught in science class.
3.) Therefore, creationism/ID should not be taught in science class.

"teaching the controversy" and other avenues to encourage debate on this subject are dishonest attempts to shoehorn creationism into schools. They are alternative theories without merit, and until they are able to scientifically show their merit, will not be taught in science class. If you honestly believe that creationism/ID should be in schools to teach the debate, then you honestly can't be against teaching the Flying Spaghetti Monster there either, as it is an equally well supported alternate theory.

You'd think so...

Creationists simply can't be taken seriously. If you're a creationist, you're either stupid or a liar. Pick one.

 

[DangerAardvark]

I might add there there IS a perfectly legitimate way to get ID taught in schools. Compile it as a scientific theory and get it published and peer-reviewed as a viable alternative to Evolution. We're waiting...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
I might add there there IS a perfectly legitimate way to get ID taught in schools. Compile it as a scientific theory and get it published and peer-reviewed as a viable alternative to Evolution. We're waiting...

That's too difficult and there's a conspiracy against God conjured up by Satan. The forces of darkness keeps God out of the Science Class!!!

 

[deftron]

Didn't God "create" evolution if he created humans, and humans thought if evolution, and God has a master plan?




Always confused me